A big change could be in store for Georgia’s criminal justice system: a shift by diverting non-violent offenders away from prison and instead toward drug rehabilitation and other supervision programs such as probation.

Some of the recommendations from the Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform would also shift the cost burden of incarceration to local communities by raising the thresholds on what constitutes a felony theft or deposit account fraud charge. Report by The Citizen.

Fayette County District Attorney Scott Ballard said last month that he favors improving the justice system, but he is wary of limiting judges’ tools to sentence offenders.

“It’s kind of like trying to play golf with just one club in the bag,” Ballard said. “You need tools suited for each individual circumstance.”

While Georgia’s laws have resulted in non-violent habitual shoplifters being sent to prison, the catch is if they remain in the community, everyone pays increased prices at stores due to the harm they commit, Ballard said.

Ballard said that he thinks drug courts such as the one here in Fayette County “can be remarkably effective” to get people off of drugs. And he also likes the idea of lifting the felony thresholds for theft offenses.

But he’s going to want some proof before getting behind the idea that probation is a more effective punishment for prison in a number of other circumstances.

“If somebody can show me the approach that puts more people on probation keeps everybody safer than what we’re doing, I’ll be willing to listen,” Ballard said. “But I haven’t seen a single suggestion about caring how safe the citizens are: it’s all about money.”

The various recommendations came from the council, a dozen state leaders including six legislators who proposed a variety of changes to Georgia laws. Those recommendations are based in large part on statistics which show that drug and property offenders represent almost 60 percent of all admissions to the state prison system.

The prison system costs taxpayers $1 billion a year, and if current policies and statutes remain in place, prison population growth is projected to grow 8 percent in five years, according to the council’s report.

The council contends that the state can spend the same amount of money and improve the recidivism rate by implementing a variety of changes, including the adoption of accountability courts such as drug courts, which offer specialized treatment with the goal of ridding an individual’s dependency on drugs.

But in some cases, the costs would be pushed onto local communities like Fayette County. For example, the council has recommended raising the thresholds on what constitutes a felony theft. By increasing the limit from $500 to $1,500 as recommended, that would push all cases under $1,500 to either Fayette County State Court or the municipal courts in Fayetteville, Peachtree City or Tyrone.

The felony threshold for deposit account fraud, also known as passing a bad check, would also be raised from $500 to $1,500, which also would push even more cases to local courts because offenses under $1,500 would be considered misdemeanors.

Those increases in thresholds would also mean that local communities would be responsible for paying jail costs for those convicted instead of the state.

The council also is recommending an increase on the theft by shoplifting threshold from $300 to $750.

Another significant change would come to Georgia’s burglary laws, with the crime being split into two degrees: burglary in the second degree being that which takes place in unoccupied structures such as sheds, barns and the like. Burglary in the first degree would be applied when a dwelling is entered, regardless of whether it is occupied or unoccupied. The council recommends that the sentencing range correspond to the degree of the offense, with a longer sentence “for serious offenses that involve residential homes.”

The council also suggests instead of imprisoning persons for drug possession charges to have them put on probation instead, but if that happens, courts and probation officers must have improved and expanded options. As such, the council is recommending additional day reporting centers, residential treatment centers and accountability courts.

Some 3,200 offenders are admitted to prison each year for a drug possession conviction, without being convicted of drug sales or trafficking, according to the council’s report. About two-thirds of those offenders are assessed as having a lower risk to re-offend, the council noted.

The council is also recommending expanded funding for the prevalence and effectiveness of probationers’ drug testing and an increase in the use of “GPS monitoring for appropriate offenders.”

Currently, probation and parole agencies don’t have the resources required to supervise offenders adequately, the council concluded in its report.

The council’s report also suggests that persons convicted of “low level” drug sale offenses also be considered for probation, but only if the offender shows the conduct was done to support his drug addiction.

The council’s work was authorized by the legislature last year, and it consists of 12 members including six legislators.

Tammy Georgia, Probation and Parole

Results from a Rhode Island Hospital study indicate benefits among many drug users.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A study from Rhode Island Hospital has found that collaborative behavioral management may be effective in reducing substance abuse among convicted marijuana users who are paroled. The findings have important implications for the management of a substantial proportion of the U.S. community correctional population. The study is published in Addiction and is available online in advance of print. Report by Eurek Alert.

In the U.S., over 700,000 inmates leave prisons each year and over two-thirds of those inmates have a drug problem. The return of these inmates to the community is a critical issue for public health and safety. Relapse following release contributes to the re-arrest of more than two-thirds of parolees and re-incarceration of over half of inmates in the three years after release. While treatment can reduce relapse, drug-involved ex-inmates give limited priority to addiction treatment. Surveillance with the threat of sanction by parole officers is the traditional method of following parolees, yet many ex-offenders fall into the same pattern and are arrested again.

Knowing that contingency management can be an effective treatment for drug abuse and addiction, researchers at Rhode Island Hospital and nationwide, led by Peter D. Friedmann, M.D., performed a clinical trial called “Step ‘n Out” to determine whether collaborative behavioral management would be effective in reducing substance abuse, crime and re-arrest among drug-involved parolees. This study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Friedmann, a physician and an addiction health services researcher at Rhode Island Hospital, explains, “Because of the so-called War on Drugs, an unprecedented number of people have been put in prison for drug use and the great majority of them return to the community. Community reentry is a difficult period – having a criminal record makes it hard to get a job and you usually return to the same environment you came from with the same people and temptations. Thus, a large proportion of drug-involved ex-offenders return to drugs and crime.”

Addiction treatment during the transition period can reduce relapse, but competing priorities such as the need for housing and finding work often limit ex-offenders willingness to participate in treatment. Parole and probation are supposed to encourage treatment and prevent a return drugs and crime, but they are poorly designed to do so. Probation and parole are based on supervision and punishment for bad behavior. For example, if a parolee tests positive for drugs, he/she might be returned to jail.

Behavioral theory holds that effective reinforcers or punishments must be both immediate (close in time to the behavior) and reliable (happen every time the behavior happens). “Any parent knows that punishment alone is not the optimal way to motivate behavior – it is best to have both carrots and sticks,” Friedmann says. “The problem is that punishment is neither immediate nor reliable — in part because of due process, but also because surveillance is imperfect and offenders have a disincentive to get caught. Conversely, drug use produces both immediate and reliable reinforcement, where a user gets a good feeling with every use.”

Friedmann explains, “The everyday reinforcers of daily life such as a good job and good family life can’t compete – they are delayed and not guaranteed.” Thus, behavioral theory explains what we see – the reentry period is extremely challenging and many ex-offenders end up returning to drugs and crime.”

Through the Step’n Out study, the researchers developed a system of “bridge reinforcement” to provide incentives for good behavior. Weekly over 12 weeks, officers, treatment counselors and clients worked together to agree on a behavioral contract in which there were three target behaviors. If the client met the behaviors then they were rewarded through a system of points that led to positive social reinforcers or material reinforcers like gift cards. A computer program helped track and manage the points and reinforcers. The motto of the study was “Catching People Doing Things Right” because the clients now had a reason to report their successes and the parole officers to recognize them. This intervention was studied in a randomized clinical trial in six parole offices in five states.

The Step ‘n Out trial reported that collaborative behavioral management worked to reduce primary drug use among “non-hard drug” users, primarily marijuana. Since marijuana users comprise a large proportion of individuals arrested for drug use, this study suggests that this behavioral approach to community corrections might reduce drug use and ultimately reincarceration. The findings, however, could not demonstrate benefit among parolees who preferred stimulants or opiates.

Friedmann notes, “Since the majority of drug violation arrests in the U.S. are for marijuana, these findings have important implications for the management of a substantial proportion of parolees. The study shows that an intervention grounded in behavioral science is feasible and effective in real-world correctional settings.”

###

Friedmann’s principal affiliation is Rhode Island Hospital, a member hospital of the Lifespan health system in Rhode Island. He also has an academic appointment at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. He is also a physician with University Medicine Foundation http://www.umfmed.org/ and the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Other researchers involved in the study with Friedmann include Traci C. Green, Faye S. Taxman, Magdalena Harrington, Anne G. Rhodes, Elizabeth Katz, Daniel O’Connell, Steven S. Martin, Linda K. Frisman, Mark Litt, William Burdon, Jennifer G. Clarke and Bennett W. Fletcher for the Step ‘n Out Research Group of the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS).

CJ-DATS is funded through a cooperative agreement from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health (NIDA/NIH), with support from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Institution on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (all part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) and from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Tammy Drug Treatment & Diversion, Probation and Parole, Rhode Island

Tammy Michigan, Probation and Parole

Refusal to grant parole and the cancellation of parole had increased the WA prison population by over 700 at an estimated cost of about $115, 950 per day.

Taxpayers are footing an extra $116, 000 a day to keep prisoners inside jail and not grant them parole, according to a new report tabled in Parliament.

Figures outlined in the report show that since 2009, the number of offenders released on parole in Western Australia had fallen significantly, dropping from 92 per cent to 21 per cent, and there had been a significant increase in the rate of cancelled parole orders, which almost doubled to about four parolees out of 100 having their orders cancelled. Report by The Sydney Morning Herald.

This means WA now has a lower rate of offenders on parole and a higher rate of offenders in prison compared to the Australian average.

In March 2011, the rate of offenders on parole was 27.6 per 100,000 individuals in WA and 69.5 per 100,000 in Australia. In contrast the rate of imprisonment in the state is 213.6 per 100,000, compared with the Australian average of 125.

Auditor-General Colin Murphy found that most of this could be attributed to the Department of Corrective Services’ stricter approach to parolee non-compliance with parole conditions, resulting in a big increase in the rate of cancelled parole orders.

Mr Murphy said the department had responded to the findings of several internal reviews of its management of parolees and over the last two years had made significant changes in both policy and practice.

“There is no doubt parole is a controversial issue and there is ongoing debate about the best way to ensure the community remains safe,” he said.

“Minimising the risks and maximising the benefits of parole relies on the effective and consistent supervision and monitoring of parolees, making sure that offenders comply with parole conditions, and when they do not, appropriate action is taken.

“Stricter enforcement of parole conditions by DCS has meant that breaches are more often resulting in consequences for the parolee, such as the cancelling of their parole.”

Mr Murphy said the department’s refusal to grant parole and its cancellation of parole had increased the prison population by over 700 at an estimated cost of about $115, 950 per day.

“Parole carries a short term crime risk, but it is also a cost effective way to supervise some offenders, and can help reduce the long term risk of reoffending by providing controlled reintegration into the community,” Mr Murphy said.

“Even though DCS’s policy framework has been improved there is inconsistency in the management of parolees and the monitoring of some parole conditions.

“If parole conditions are not monitored effectively then some parolees may be breaching conditions without DCS knowing and some parolees may return to the behaviours which contributed to their initial imprisonment.

“Unapproved changes in accommodation, the way DCS uses drug tests and the manner in which they ensure program attendance are examples of conditions that can be better and more consistently monitored.

“DCS has made significant changes to its management of parolees, but there is more to be done if it is to minimise the risks and maximise the benefits of parole.”

In recent years the Adult Community Corrections philosophy has moved from a “welfare based” model to one which ensures compliance with all community orders, according to the department.

“[It] provides a robust, contemporary and credible system of supervision of offenders which focuses on risk assessment, risk management and public protection as the priority,” they said.

This resulted in the development of the Enforcement Policy in 2009, which addressed the response by staff and stakeholders to non-compliance by parolees to order requirements.

But the report’s key findings suggested that:

• The introduction of the Enforcement Policy by DCS has not yet led to consistent supervision of offenders. Despite efforts by DCS to communicate policy changes, understanding and application of the policy is variable.
• Changes to the Enforcement Policy have reduced the discretion of community correctional officers to deal with breaches of parole conditions and requires all breaches to be reported to the parole board. It is not yet clear if this change will reduce the frequency that offenders breach parole or if the increased cancellation of parole will have a negative impact on long term reoffending rates.
• Issues identified in DCS internal professional standards reviews – such as a lack of senior staff oversight, not adequately using assessment tools that help determine a parolee’s supervision level and reporting frequency and not always explaining to a parolee their obligations – were still evident despite DCS taking a proactive approach to identify them.
• Because DCS is not monitoring all parole conditions, and for some conditions relies on parolees to self-report non-compliance, some parolees may be breaching their orders without DCS knowing. This is because some conditions such as “not to enter licensed premises” or “not to have contact with females under 16″ are impractical to monitor.  The stricter enforcement of parole conditions reduce the incentive for parolees to self-report issues that could result in cancellation of their parole.
• Better monitoring of some parole conditions is needed. The use of drug tests and the monitoring of program attendance are inconsistent; reducing the effectiveness of both conditions. There was no evidence that DCS had confirmed program attendance for over 55 per cent of parolees. Similar inconsistencies were evident with parolees requiring drug testing. Not checking these conditions often enough may enable a parolee to return to high risk behaviours without DCS addressing the increased risk.

The report has recommended that the effectiveness of parole should be improved by:

• Ensuring staff have a consistent understanding of its parole policies.
• The department conduct regular reviews of staff compliance and suitability of monitoring methods, including parolee’s accommodation, drug testing and attendance at programs.
• Examine the impact and effectiveness of the Enforcement Policy and other parole initiatives.
• Improve the integration of offender information so that correctional officers have better access to up-to-date, comprehensive documents.

The department has welcomed the report and the recommendations, saying that it had already commenced a significant body of work into addressing a number of concerns highlighted by this review as well as other internal directed reviews.

“The review undertaken by the Office of the Auditor-General has highlighted the department’s need to not only ensure that a sound communication strategy is in place for the dissemination of policy and procedural change, but that the information communicated is embedded in operational practice,” it said in the report.

“This issue has previously been identified by the Division and a number of strategies have been implemented which already show very positive improvement in enforcement.

“The key focus for DCS is to contribute to community safety by upholding the integrity of custodial and non-custodial sentences and by positively influencing offender behaviour to reduce reoffending.

“The department acknowledges the need for continuous improvement in compliance with policies and procedures governing the management of parolees in the community and will use the Auditor General’s report to inform future developments.”

Tammy Probation and Parole, Western Australia

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Rates of completion up for parolees and probationers since 2006

The number of adult offenders under community supervision on probation or on parole declined by 1.3 percent during 2010, dropping to about 4.9 million adults at yearend, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. This marked the second consecutive year of decline in the number of adults under community supervision. Report by Market Watch.

Probation is a court-ordered period of correctional supervision in the community, generally as an alternative to incarceration. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a prison term. At yearend 2010, about 1 in every 48 adults in the U.S. was on probation or parole, a rate lower than the 1 in every 46 that was observed in 2000.

The number of adult probationers declined (down 1.7 percent) for the second consecutive year, dropping to nearly 4.1 million probationers at yearend 2010. The entire decline in the community supervision population was attributable to the decrease in the probation population since probationers make up 83 percent of adults under community supervision.

During 2010, the number of adults on parole or other post-prison supervision increased slightly (up 0.3 percent), reaching about 840,700 parolees at yearend. The state parole population (down 0.3 percent) declined for the second consecutive year while the number of adult offenders on supervised release following a prison term in the federal system increased by 4.9 percent during 2010.

The number of offenders who entered parole supervision (565,300) during 2010 exceeded the number discharged from parole (562,500), contributing to the increase in the parole population. Discharges from parole declined 1.8 percent and entries onto parole declined 0.5 percent during the year.

The failure rate of parolees–defined as the percentage of parolees who were returned to incarceration at some point during the year–decreased over the decade. During 2010, about 13 percent of parolees were reincarcerated at some time during the year, down from about 16 percent during 2000. About 5.7 percent of probationers were incarcerated at some point during 2010, nearly unchanged since 2000 (5.5 percent).

The completion rate for offenders on parole continued to increase since 2006. Slightly more than half of parolees (52 percent) who were discharged from parole during 2010 completed their terms of supervision or were discharged early, a rate higher than the 45 percent observed in 2006.

For the second consecutive year, the number of offenders discharged from probation supervision (about 2.3 million) exceeded the number who entered probation (about 2.2 million) during 2010, contributing to the decrease in the probation population. About 65 percent of probationers who were discharged during the year completed their terms of supervision or were discharged early, the same percentage as in 2009. This was still higher than the 58 percent who completed probation in 2006.

Thirty-three states reported declines in their probation population during 2010. California (down 18,854) and Florida (down 11,228) accounted for almost a third of the decrease in probationers. Nineteen jurisdictions–including the District of Columbia and the federal system–reported increases in their probation population, led by Pennsylvania (up 7,968), Alabama (up 3,312), and Georgia (up 3,273).

In 2010, 19 states reported declines in their parole population. In 31 states and the District of Columbia, the parole population increase. Louisiana (up 2,595), Kentucky (up 2,027), Georgia (up 1,382), and Mississippi (up 1,008) accounted for more than half of the total increase in parolees.

The race, gender and offense characteristics among probationers and parolees remained relatively unchanged during the year. At yearend 2010–

The majority of probationers (76 percent) and parolees (88 percent) were male.

Most probationers (55 percent) and parolees (42 percent) were white, while a smaller portion of probationers (30 percent) and parolees (39 percent) were black.

Most probationers were supervised for a property (28 percent) or drug offense (26 percent).

More than a third of parolees were drug offenders (35 percent) and a quarter were property offenders (24 percent).

About 19 percent of probationers and 27 percent of parolees were supervised for a violent offense.

The report, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010 (NCJ 236019), was written by BJS statisticians Lauren Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar. Following publication, the report can be found at http://www.bjs.gov .

For additional information about the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ statistical reports and programs, please visit the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov/ .

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), headed by Assistant Attorney General Laurie O. Robinson, provides federal leadership in developing the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims. OJP has six components: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. More information about OJP can be found at http://www.ojp.gov .

SOURCE Bureau of Justice Statistics – US Department of Justice

Tammy Probation and Parole, Washington

The Sacramento County Probation Department announced that it has been awarded a grant to step-up supervision of individuals repeatedly convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Tammy Grants, Probation and Parole, Sacramento

BOISE — Ada County has decided to keep doing business with a private contractor for misdemeanor probation services, despite controversy and allegations the owner is overcharging, perhaps keeping people on probation too long.

“I just can’t see us going out tomorrow morning and providing service.  I mean, what kind of a situation would we be in then?” Ada County Commission Chairman Rick Yzaguirre said. Report by KTVB.

Earlier this month, three named plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nancy Cladis, the owner of Ada County Misdemeanor Probation Services.  After holding off their decision for a week (tabling the vote partially because of the lawsuit), county commissioners voted Tuesday 2-to-1 in favor of keeping their current contract with Cladis.

Yzaguirre says yes, there are allegations, but so far, that’s all they are.  Without proof or a court decision he says it’s fair and practical to keep the current contract with Cladis.

“Until she’s proven guilty, I’m interested in working with her,” Yzaguirre said.  “In my mind, we couldn’t just not renew the contract, step up tomorrow morning and start providing that level of service, so we needed a transition period.”

The renewed contract will stand through September 30, 2012, then Yzaguirre says the county is taking it over, supervising misdemeanor probationers through a new department.

“Separate budget, separate department, similar operation, only it will be managed by county employees,” Yzaguirre said.

Citing many complaints, Sharon Ullman is the only commissioner who voted against the renewal.

“I’ve been getting such a high volume of phone calls and email messages, I’ve been unable to keep up,” Ullman said.

She wants an investigation and the contract in county hands as soon as possible.  She called it irresponsible to sign the contract for another year without the allegations being investigated by the county.

“I truly believe that we as a county, our taxpayers, and the probationers themselves would be better off unsupervised for whatever time frame it takes us to gear up and be ready to run than to operate with somebody that we know is doing it wrong,” Ullman said.

Meantime, commissioners are putting county employees into Cladis’ office next week.  Ullman and Yzaquirre both say that move is partially as oversight, partially as transition to the county taking over the service.

“If anything is uncovered in our preparations, when we have our employees overseeing this operation, then certainly we can take action at that point in time,” Ullman said.

If allegations were found to be true, commissioners say their contract does allow them to immediately get out of their arrangement with Cladis and her company.

Cladis’ attorney, David Leroy, says she will file a response to the lawsuit soon.  He explains she will deny any wrongdoing and explain she followed Idaho law in charging extra fees for services like drug testing.  Also, Leroy says she does not profit from those additional fees, all money goes to testing companies.

Tammy Idaho, Probation and Parole

NACOGDOCHES, TX (KTRE) - Just hours ago the Nacogdoches County courthouse was busy with inmates making pleas before any indictment.

The “Jail Call” helped clear-out cells, but it adds to the case load of probation officers. Report by KTRE.

Half the jail was called to the courthouse. In all, about twenty inmates made the trip. Many pleaded guilty to their crimes, allowing them to get out of jail on probation.

“We have a wide range of sanctions that we use. Of course, with jail being the last one,” said Probation Officer Ty McCarty.

In the initial meeting, probation officers tell new probationers the importance of not messing up. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against them.

“It’s a little bit pessimistic I think for all of us when anyone goes on probation just because there is a pretty good likelihood that they’re not going to successfully complete the probation,” said Nacogdoches County District Attorney Nicole Lostracco.

Many probationers have a difficult time finding steady, good-paying jobs. They tend to be stuck in a cycle of poverty. Consequently, they can’t always meet the financial obligations associated with probation.

Lostracco also notes many probations are revoked over silly things as opposed to heinous crimes.

“Failure to do community service. How tough is that? My personal favorite, failure to report. All you have to do is show up and say here I am this month,” said Lostracco.

Many probationers take chances, knowing jail is usually the last sanction….and for some a trip to prison isn’t a deterrent at all.

“We don’t like to see anyone go to jail. That’s not what we’re here for. We’re here to help somebody whose made a mistake and learn from it,” said McCarty.

A lot of people are learning the tough lesson. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, one quarter of Americans on parole or probation are in Texas.

According to a Texas Department of Criminal justice report… There was a 58-percent increase in probation revocations from 1994 to 2000.

That’s for probationers sent to prison for rules violations.

As a result, Texas taxpayers shelled-out $470 million dollars in 2001, paying for their imprisonment.

Tammy Probation and Parole, TX Nacogdoches County

Photo by Angela Carone / KPBS Above: The entrance to the prison at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, which houses roughly 4,800 inmates. The entrance is heavily gated and monitored by a watchtower.

California’s correctional system is undergoing an overhaul that could save money and reduce recidivism but also might lead to thousands of criminals spending significantly less time behind bars or in the parole office.

The so-called “prison realignment” that began on Saturday, is transferring the state’s responsibility for lower-level drug offenders, thieves and other convicts to county jurisdictions.Report by KPBS.

Some prosecutors and county sheriffs predict rising crime and other dire outcomes from what amounts to the most radical change in the prison system in decades. But others say California’s counties can provide better rehabilitation and job training services that can only improve on the state’s recidivism record, in which nearly seven of every 10 ex-convicts are returned to state prison after committing a new crime.

The move is designed to reduce the state’s corrections costs so more money can go toward public education and other services while also reducing California’s prison population to accommodate a federal court order.

“This is a bold vision of a different relationship between the state and local government,” Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday. “It’s bold, it’s difficult and it will continuously change as we learn from experience. But we can’t sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something, and this is the most viable plan that I have been able to put together.”

Realignment means judges will no longer sentence non-violent, lower-level offenders to state prison for crimes such as auto theft, burglary, grand theft, forgery, counterfeiting and drug possession for sale. Instead, nearly 26,000 convicts who would previously have gone to state prison are expected to serve their time in county jails where, proponents say, they will be closer to home, jobs and rehabilitation programs and so will be less likely to commit new crimes after they are released.

The realignment will not affect inmates in state prison today, but rather will apply to those convicted after this week. Those convicted of sex crimes or violent offenses will continue to be sentenced to state prison.

While the length of sentences is to remain the same, jails in many counties are overcrowded and release inmates after they have served a fraction of their time. That dynamic could lead to more inmates being released early, as counties cope with the influx expected to peak over the next four years.

“It’s a sea change,” said Ventura County District Attorney Gregory Totten, president of the California District Attorneys Association. “That policy of ‘Just lock ‘em up’ is changing.”

Critics say counties have neither the money nor the bed space to cope with the coming wave of inmates.

“The law-abiding public is going to pay a huge price as they become the victims of a tremendously spiking crime rate,” said Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, who attributes years of dropping crime rates throughout California to the many sentencing enhancements available to prosecutors.

“We are abandoning a system that was working,” he said.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who runs the nation’s largest jail system, has said he has 4,500 spare beds and is confident he can handle — at least initially — the influx of new inmates. The county expects more than 10,000 extra inmates or people on probation in the first year of the realignment plan.

Criminal justice experts call California’s shift the most sweeping corrections development in the state since lawmakers adopted determinate sentencing in 1977. That change set terms of incarceration by law rather than allowing a parole board to decide on a case-by-case basis when convicts should be released.

California’s prison population has exploded over the past two decades as voters and lawmakers approved numerous tough-on-crime measures, including life sentences for those convicted of a third felony and extended sentences for using a gun or belonging to a gang. In almost all cases, voters and lawmakers made the changes without a way to pay for the extra prison space or guards required to house the additional inmates, a scenario that left the state paying more for corrections while it cuts money for higher education, health care and other services.

California’s adult prison population has grown from about 97,000 in 1990 to nearly 161,000 today, while the cost of incarceration during that timeframe has risen from $20,562 per inmate to $49,190.

The corrections department now draws $9.8 billion from the state’s general fund, or 11.4 percent of this year’s spending plan. That is more than the state spends on the University of California and California State University systems combined.

Supporters of the changes say county prosecutors and judges now will have to take into account the financial burden their sentencing decisions create because more criminals will stay in the community for their punishment.

“The Legislature has decided our enthusiasm for incarceration has outstripped our willingness to pay for it,” San Diego County Superior Court Judge David Danielsen said.

Once completed, the transfer in responsibility is projected to trim the state’s incarceration costs by nearly $1.5 billion. Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate said the savings will come from closing some prisons and laying off correctional and parole officers, although the state will have to be careful to avoid overcrowding the remaining prisons to avoid running afoul of a federal court receiver who is overseeing inmate medical care.

Sentencing lower-level offenders to county jail instead of state prison also is California’s primary response to a federal court order, upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the state reduce its prison population to improve the medical care given to inmates.

Counties are in line for nearly $1 billion a year to help pay for realignment. The money comes after lawmakers converted part of the state sales tax to a local sales tax. Counties also will receive $453 million from the state’s vehicle license fee that used to go to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV is getting part of its money back through a $12 increase in the cost to register a vehicle.

Brown pledged again Thursday that he will put a constitutional amendment before voters in November 2012 to guarantee that local governments get the money no matter if the state runs into more fiscal difficulties. In the meantime, law enforcement authorities differ on whether the realignment will succeed or lead to a crime wave through a mass early release of criminals.

Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones predicted the switch “is destined to failure.” Jail inmates will serve half their sentences before being released instead of the current two-thirds, and Jones said he cannot open enough jail cells to keep pace with the influx of inmates who previously would have gone to prison.

“You know with certainty there’s going to be more people on the street that otherwise would have been in jails or prison,” Jones said. “You add to that a statistical certainty of a 70 percent recidivism rate — I don’t know how anyone could rightfully argue there’s not going to be more crimes in the community.”

Others say they are confident the changes will help reduce crime.

Some counties have a head start, and others say they can learn from those successes.

Napa County, for example, created a Community Corrections Service Center in 2009 as it sought alternatives because of jail overcrowding. Dozens of offenders attend classes and undergo regular drug and alcohol testing in a program that can run as long as a year.

Those who succeed can get early release from their jail or probation terms, said Mary Butler, the county’s chief probation officer. Of its first graduates last year, 70 percent are employed and less than a quarter have violated their probation or committed new crimes.

In South Los Angeles, officials have converted an old furniture warehouse into what they say is a gleaming example of how probation should be done. Young offenders are given therapy, job training and lessons on how to make wise decisions when posed with a moral predicament. With adequate funding, officials hope to expand the program.

Good intentions aside, counties have had only about six months to prepare for the changes, and some are not ready.

At the Crenshaw probation office in Los Angeles, which will see its current caseload of about 4,000 ex-cons double in the coming year, staffing is the most pressing concern. The county hasn’t approved funding for extra probation officers, so existing workers are being placed on an emergency staffing schedule to deal with the strain.

The probation department’s senior director, Ed Johnson, said criminals will have fewer check-ins with probation officers and that more medium- and low-risk offenders will be monitored via touch-screen kiosks that ask a set of rote questions.

One of his probation deputies, Larry Holloway, supervises 60 high-risk offenders but expects his caseload to increase to about 200 under realignment.

“I have some concerns about that, for sure,” he said.

Tammy California, Prison Realignment, Probation and Parole, Recidivism, Rehabilitation

San Diego County has a plan to absorb 4,000 offenders who will shift from state to county oversight in the next few months. The county’s probation department is expanding to work on new policies designed to shorten jail stays and increase community supervision.

County Supervisor Ron Roberts said a good working relationship among law enforcement agencies in San Diego should make the transition easier. But he said many other counties are not handling the challenge well. Report by KPBS.

“San Diego is not an island,” he said, “We’re part of a state where many of the counties, they’re not going to be able to deal with this. There are not going to be hundreds of people that don’t belong there, there are going to be thousands of people on the streets of California that rightfully should be in jail.”

Thirty-seven of California’s 58 counties have jails that are already overcrowded.

In Los Angeles, Chief Probation Officer Donald Blevins is under pressure to leave because of a failure to reform the badly broken probation system. Employees have given him a vote of no confidence.

Meanwhile, community leaders are calling on Los Angeles’ sheriff to step down after the ACLU released a damning report.

Peter Eliasberg of ACLU said Sheriff Lee Baca has failed to address systemic violence and prisoner abuse in L.A.’s County overcrowded jails.

“For decades the LA county jail has had enormous problems, “Eliasberg said, “and for decades the sheriff’s department has failed to confront those. Either he or his spokesperson literally engages in a blanket policy of denial. “

Because of its size, LA will receive about a third of the offenders being passed down to county jurisdiction by the state.

Observers are concerned that the leaders of the criminal justice system in LA are under fire, on the brink of an historic change that could threaten public safety state wide.

Tammy CA San Diego County, Overcrowding, Prison Realignment, Probation and Parole, Recidivism